arXiv:2009.05733v1 [math.AP] 12 Sep 2020
WATER WITH CORIOLIS FORCE ZHIWU LIN, DONGYI WEI, ZHIFEI ZHANG, AND HAO ZHU
Abstract. In this paper, we study the number of traveling wave families near a shear flow (u,0) under the influence of Coriolis force, where the traveling speeds lie outside the range of u. Let β be the Rossby number. If the flow uhas at least one critical point at which u attains its minimal (resp. maximal) value, then a unique transitionalβ value exists in the positive (resp. negative) half-line such that the number of traveling wave families near (u,0) changes suddenly from finite one to infinity when β passes through it. Ifu has no such critical points, then the number is always finite for positive (resp. negative)βvalues. This is true for general shear flows under a technical assumption, and for flows in classK+
unconditionally. The sudden change of the number of traveling wave families indicates that nonlinear dynamics around the shear flow is much richer than the non-rotating case, where no such traveling waves exist.
1. Introduction
Nonlinear long time dynamical behavior near a shear flow is closely related to the existence (or not) of non-trivial invariant structures (non-parallel steady flows, traveling waves, etc.). Non-existence of non-trivial invariant structures near a shear flow is necessary for nonlinear inviscid damping. Conversely, their existence means nonlinear inviscid damping is not true, and long time dynamics near the shear flow maybe richer, as some initial data near the shear flow might asymptotically converge to a non-trivial invariant structure, or converge to the superpositions of several invariant structures in a function space, which predicts complicated nonlinear dynamics near the shear flow.
Existence of embedding or isolated real eigenvalues of the linearized Euler operator is crucial in constructing non-parallel steady flows or traveling waves near a shear flow. Based on the existence of an embedding eigenvalue for a class of monotone shear flows near Couette, Lin and Zeng [11] constructed cat’s eyes flows by bifurcation at these flows. When the Coriolis force is involved, Lin, Yang and Zhu constructed a set of traveling waves near the Sinus flow on account of the existence of an isolated real eigenvalue in [10]. The traveling speeds lie outside the range of the basic flowuand are contiguous to the isolated real eigenvalue. These traveling waves have fluid trajectories moving in one direction, and thus have no cat’s eyes structure. If there is no earth’s rotation, then it is well-known that the linearized Euler operator has no isolated real eigenvalues (e.g. [18]), and thus no such traveling waves exist. Therefore, their existence is purely due to the Coriolis effects. Barcilon and Drazin [1] studied the bifurcation of nontrivial waves using an embedding eigenvalue for some classes of special flows.
In this paper, we study the number of traveling wave families near a general shear flow
u with Coriolis force, where the traveling speeds lie outside the range of u. The number of traveling wave families traces back to the study of isolated real eigenvalues of the linearized Euler operator, see Theorem 5.5. Thus, we first study the number of isolated real eigenvalues
Date: September 15, 2020.
of the linearized Euler operator for fixed wave number in Theorems 1.1–1.2. Ifuhas a critical point at whichuattains its minimal (resp. maximal) value, then we call it a critical-minimal (resp. critical-maximal) point of u. Our theory depends crucially on these points. Let β be the Rossby number. Under the β-plane approximation of the Coriolis force, we prove that if the flow u has at least one critical-minimal (resp. critical-maximal) point, then a unique transitional β value β+ (resp. β−) exists in the positive (resp. negative) half-line, through
which the number of traveling wave families changes suddenly from finite one to infinity. Here, β± are defined in (1.17)–(1.18). If the flow u has no minimal (resp. critical-maximal) point, then the number of traveling wave families is always finite for positive (resp. negative) β values. This is true for general flows under a technical condition, see Theorem 1.6. Based on Hamiltonian structure and index theory, we can prove Theorem 1.6 for flows in classK+ unconditionally. For the flow with Sinus profile, we calculate the explicit number of isolated real eigenvalues of the linearized Euler operator (and traveling wave families) on the whole (α, β)-plane, which plays an important role in further study of its long time dynamics. The earth’s rotation influences dynamics of large scale flows significantly. As indicated in [13], the study of the dynamics of large scale oceanic or atmospheric motions must include the Coriolis force to be geophysically relevant, and once the Coriolis force is included a host of subtle and fascinating dynamical phenomena are possible. Partial dynamics of large scale flows has been studied in [3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19] and references therein. The motion for a large scale flow could be described by 2-D incompressible Euler equation with rotation
∂t~v+ (~v· ∇)~v=−∇P−βyJ~v, ∇ ·~v = 0,
(1.1)
where~v = (v1, v2) is the fluid velocity, P is the pressure, and J =
0 −1
1 0
is the rotation matrix. Here we study the fluid in a finite channel Ω = (x, y) : x ∈ T, y ∈ [y1, y2] with non-permeable boundary condition on ∂Ω:
v2= 0 on y=y1, y2. (1.2)
The vorticity form of (1.1) takes
(1.3) ∂tω+ (~v· ∇)ω+βv2= 0,
where ω = ∂xv2 −∂yv1. Let ~v = ∇⊥ψ = (∂yψ,−∂xψ). Consider the shear flow (u(y),0),
which is a steady solution of (1.3). The linearized equation of (1.3) around (u(y),0) takes
∂tω+u∂xω−(β−u′′)∂xψ= 0.
(1.4)
In terms of the stream functionψ, (1.4) can be written as ∂t∆ψ+u∂x∆ψ+ (β−u′′)∂xψ= 0.
By taking Fourier transform inx, we have
(∂y2−α2)∂tψb=iα((u′′−β)−u(∂y2−α2))ψ.b
(1.5)
Forα >0 andβ ∈R, we define
Rα,βψb:=−(∂y2−α2)−1((u′′−β)−u(∂y2−α2))ψ.b
Then (1.5) becomes−iα1∂tψb=Rα,βψ.b Letσ(Rα,β),σe(Rα,β) andσd(Rα,β) be the spectrum,
essential spectrum and discrete spectrum ofRα,β, respectively. c∈σd(Rα,β) if and only if its
corresponding eigenfunction ψc satisfies the Rayleigh-Kuo equation with Dirichlet boundary
condition:
Lcφ:=−φ′′+u′′−β
u−c φ=λφ, φ(y1) =φ(y2) = 0,
where φ∈ H01∩H2(y1, y2) and λ=−α2. Recall thatσe(Rα,β) = Ran(u). Then the set of
isolated real eigenvalues σd(Rα,β)∩R ⊂(−∞, umin)∪(umax,∞). Consider a class of shear flows, which satisfy
(H1) u∈H4(y1, y2), u′′6= 0 onu’s critical level{u′= 0}. We use the following notation.
κ+=
minu′′({u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umin})>0, if{u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umin} 6=∅,
∞, if{u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umin}=∅,
(1.7)
κ−=
maxu′′({u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umax})<0, if{u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umax} 6=∅,
−∞, if{u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umax}=∅, (1.8) mβ = ♯{a∈(y1, y2) :u(a) =umin, u′′(a)−β <0}, if 0< β ≤98κ+, ♯{a∈(y1, y2) :u(a) =umax, u′′(a)−β >0}, if 98κ−≤β <0, (1.9) Mβ = − inf c∈(−∞,umin)λmβ+1(c), if 0< β≤ 9 8κ+, − inf c∈(umax,∞) λmβ+1(c), if 9 8κ−≤β <0, (1.10)
µ+= minu′′({u=umin} ∩(y1, y2)), if{u=umin} ∩(y1, y2)6=∅, (1.11)
µ−= maxu′′({u=umax} ∩(y1, y2)), if{u=umax} ∩(y1, y2)6=∅. (1.12)
Here, ♯(S) denotes the cardinality of the set S and λmβ+1(c) is the (mβ + 1)-th eigenvalue
of (1.6). If {u =umin} ∩(y1, y2) 6=∅, then 0< κ+ ≤µ+<∞. If{u=umax} ∩(y1, y2) 6=∅, then−∞< µ−≤κ−<0. For convenience, we denote
(E+) umin is not an embedding eigenvalue of Rα,β for 0< α2 ≤Mβ,
(E−) umax is not an embedding eigenvalue of Rα,β for 0< α2 ≤Mβ.
In the first part of this paper, we study the number of isolated real eigenvalues of the linearized Euler operator in Theorems 1.1–1.2, which plays an important role in counting the traveling wave families, see Theorem 5.5.
Theorem 1.1. Assume that u satisfies (H1) andα >0. Then
(1) σd(Rα,β)∩R = ∅ if β = 0; σd(Rα,β)∩(umax,∞) = ∅ if β > 0; and σd(Rα,β)∩
(−∞, umin) =∅ if β <0.
(2) If 0< β < 98κ+ and (E+) holds, then
mβ ≤♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(−∞, umin))<∞. (1.13)
If 0< β≤ 98κ+, then Mβ <∞ and (1.13)holds for α2 > Mβ.
(3) If 98κ−< β <0 and (E−) holds, then
mβ ≤♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(umax,∞))<∞. (1.14)
If 98κ−≤β <0, then Mβ <∞ and (1.14)holds for α2 > Mβ.
(4) If β > 98κ+, then ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(−∞, umin)) =∞. (5) If β < 98κ−, then ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(umax,∞)) =∞.
The condition (E±) for β∈(89κ−,98κ+) in Theorem 1.1 (2)–(3) can be dropped for a flow
u in classK+, see Theorem 6.2. Here, a flow in classK+ is specified in Definition 6.1. The transitional β values 98κ± are essentially due to the variational expression (2.1) for the k-th eigenvalue of (1.6) and the optimal Hardy type inequality (2.2), as is indicated in (2.6) and (3.3). The first step in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (2)–(3) is to study the distribution
for eigenvalues of (1.6), see Theorem 2.3. The main idea is to control R uu′′−−cβ|φ|2dy using the L2 norm of φ′ near a singular point, which involves very dedicate and careful localized
analysis. The second step is to rule out the possibility that the negative eigenvalues of (1.6) oscillate in a faster way as c → u−min or c → u+max. We prove uniform H1 bound for corresponding eigenfunctions in Proposition 2.5 and rule out it using the condition thatumin orumaxis not an embedding eigenvalue ofRα,β. The idea in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (4)–(5)
is to construct suitable test functions such that the functional in (2.1) converges to −∞ as
c→u−min or c→u+max, see (3.1). This is inspired by the “eigenfunction”y12 for the optimal Hardy type equality and a support-separated technique.
Our next result is complementary to Theorem 1.1 for flows with “good” endpoints.
Theorem 1.2. Let α >0, u satisfy(H1) andu(y1)6=u(y2). Assume that for i= 1,2, there
exist δ > 0, C > 0 and mi > 0 such that (i) u′′(y) = βi for y ∈ (yi −δ, yi +δ)∩[y1, y2]
or (ii) C−1|y−yi|mi ≤ |u′′(y)−βi| ≤ C|y−yi|mi for y ∈ (yi −δ, yi +δ)∩[y1, y2] or (iii)
βiu′(yi)(−1)i ≥0, where βi=u′′(yi). Then
(1) ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩R)<∞ for all β ∈(0,∞) if and only if {u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umin}=∅; (2) ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩R)<∞ for all β ∈(−∞,0) if and only if {u′= 0} ∩ {u=umax}=∅.
Consequently, ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩R) < ∞ for all β ∈ R if and only if {u′ = 0} ∩ {u = umin} =
{u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umax}=∅.
The conditions in Theorem 1.2 are rather generic and cover most flows. For these flows, Theorem 1.2 indicates that no transitionalβ value exists in the positive half-line ifu has no critical-minimal point. By Theorem 1.1, under the assumption (E+) for 0 < β < 98κ+, a unique transitional β value 98κ+ exists in the positive half-line if u has at least one critical-minimal point. Similar conclusions are valid for the negative half-line. In this sense, Theorem 1.2 supplements Theorem 1.1. We give the combination of Theorems 1.1–1.2 in Corollary 4.4, and get the the sharp criteria for the first eigenvalue ofLc to be uniformly bounded from
below in Corollary 3.1. Corollaries 3.1 and 4.4 are crucial in studying the number of traveling wave families near the shear flow.
For the second part of this paper, we first establish the relationship between an isolated real eigenvalue of the linearized Euler operator and a traveling wave family near the shear flow in Lemmas 1.3–1.4, and then obtain the transitional β value for the number of nearby traveling wave families in Theorem 1.6.
First, we determine the asymptotic behavior of traveling speeds andL2 normalized vertical velocities for nearby traveling waves. For convenience, we denote DT = (0, T)×(y1, y2) with
T = 2π/α.
Lemma 1.3. Let α > 0, β 6= 0 and u ∈ H4(y1, y2). Assume that there exists ε0 > 0 such
that for ε ∈ (0, ε0), there exists a traveling wave solution ~uε(x−cεt, y) = (uε(x−cεt, y), vε(x−cεt, y)) to (1.1)–(1.2)which has period T = 2π/αin x,
k(uε, vε)−(u,0)kH3(D
T)≤ε,
kvεkL2(DT) 6= 0, cε ∈/ Ran(u) and cε →c0. Then c0 ∈Sk≥1(σd(Rkα,β)∩R)∪ {umin, umax}.
Moreover, if c0 ∈Sk≥1(σd(Rkα,β)∩R), then there exists ϕc0 ∈ker(Gc0) such that ˜
vε−→ϕc0 in H 2(D
T),
(1.15)
where the operator Gc0 is defined by
Gc0 =−∆−
β−u′′(y)
u(y)−c0
: H2(DT)→L2(DT)
with periodic boundary condition in x and Dirichlet boundary condition in y, and vε˜ =
vε/kvεkL2(DT).
The limit functionϕc0 in Lemma 1.3 is a superposition of finite normal modes, see Remark 5.1. Ifc0 ∈Sk≥1(σd(Rkα,β)∩R) in Lemma 1.3, the vertical velocities of the nearby traveling
waves have simple asymptotic behavior as seen in (1.15). However, ifc0 ∈ {umin, umax}, then the asymptotic behavior of vertical velocities might be complicated, see Remark 5.2.
Then we study the converse of Lemma 1.3. In fact, using an isolated real eigenvalue of the linearized Euler operator, we can construct nearby traveling waves.
Lemma 1.4. Let α >0,β 6= 0 and u∈H4(y
1, y2). Assume that c0 ∈Sk≥1(σd(Rkα,β)∩R).
Then there exists ε0 > 0 such that for ε ∈ (0, ε0), there exists a traveling wave solution
~uε(x−cεt, y) = (uε(x−cεt, y), vε(x−cεt, y))to (1.1)–(1.2) which has period T = 2π/α in x,
k(uε, vε)−(u,0)kH3(DT)≤ε,
and cε→c0 as ε→0. Moreover, we have uε(x, y)−cε6= 0 and kvεkL2(D
T) 6= 0.
Here, we mention some differences from the construction of traveling waves in the literature. Recall that there exist n0, k0 ≥ 1 such that λn0(c0) = −(k0α)2, where λn0 is the n0-th eigenvalue of (1.6). First, we can construct traveling waves even if c0 is a local minimum or maximum point of λn0, and thus remove the local monotone assumption of λn0 near c0 in Theorem 7 of [10]. Second, it is possible that c0 ∈ σd(R0,β)∩R, which makes it subtle
to guarantee that the bifurcated solutions near the flow u is not a shear flow. To overcome the difficulty, we carefully modify the flow u to a suitable shear flow, which satisfies that
λn0 is locally monotone near c0 and c0 ∈/ σd(R0,β)∩R, and then study the bifurcation at the suitable shear flow. Finally, the minimal periods of constructed traveling waves inx are possibly less than 2π/α if c0 ∈ σd(Rα,β)∩R. In fact, the operator Lc0 could indeed have more than one negative eigenvalues (e.g., ifκ+<∞,β >9κ+/8 andc0 is close to umin). In this case, we give sufficient condition to guarantee that the minimal period is 2π/αin Lemma 5.3. In contrast, the minimal period must be 2π/α in Theorem 5.1 of [9] and Theorem 1 of [11], since the corresponding Sturm-Liouville operator has only one negative eigenvalue.
By Lemma 1.3, for any set of traveling waves near the flowu, their traveling speeds cluster at an isolated real eigenvalue of the linearized Euler operator (besides umin and umax). By Lemma 1.4, every isolated real eigenvalue is contiguous to the speeds of nearby traveling waves. As the minimal periods of traveling waves in x can be less than 2π/α, there might be two or more sets of nearby traveling waves with traveling speeds clustering at a same isolated real eigenvalue. This suggests us to define a traveling wave family near (u,0) by an equivalence class as follows.
Definition 1.5. A traveling wave family near (u,0) is defined by an equivalence class under ∼, where if {~ui,ε(x−ci,εt, y) = (ui,ε(x−ci,εt, y), vi,ε(x−ci,εt, y)), ε∈(0, εi)}, i= 1,2, are
two sets of traveling wave solutions to (1.1)–(1.2) which have period T = 2απ in x such that k(ui,ε, vi,ε)−(u,0)kH3(DT) ≤ε, kvi,εkL2(DT)6= 0, ci,ε ∈/ Ran(u) and ci,ε→ ci ∈/ Ran(u), then
the relation ∼ is given by
{~u1,ε(x−c1,εt, y), ε∈(0, ε1)} ∼ {~u2,ε(x−c2,εt, y), ε∈(0, ε2)} ⇔ c1 =c2,
and simultaneously, there exists ϕi ∈ker(Gci) such that v˜i,ε−→ϕi in H
2(D
T), where v˜i,ε= vi,ε/kvi,εkL2(D
By Lemmas 1.3–1.4, we obtain the exact number of traveling wave families near the flow
u, see Theorem 5.5. Now, we are ready to state our main result.
Theorem 1.6. Let α >0, β 6= 0 and u satisfy (H1).
(1) Assume that {u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umin} 6=∅and (E+) holds for β ∈(0,9
8κ+). Then there
existsβ+ ∈(0,∞) such that there exist at most finitely many traveling wave families
near(u,0) for β∈(0, β+), and infinitely many traveling wave families near (u,0) for
β∈(β+,∞). Moreover, β+= ( min{98κ+, µ+}, if{u=umin} ∩(y1, y2)6=∅, 9 8κ+, if{u=umin} ∩(y1, y2) =∅. (1.17)
(2) Assume that {u′ = 0} ∩ {u = umax} 6= ∅ and (E−) holds for β ∈ (98κ−,0). Then
there exists β− ∈ (−∞,0) such that there exist at most finitely many traveling wave families near (u,0) for β ∈(β−,0), and infinitely many traveling wave families near (u,0) for β ∈(−∞, β−). Moreover, β− = ( max{98κ−, µ−}, if {u=umax} ∩(y1, y2)6=∅, 9 8κ−, if {u=umax} ∩(y1, y2) =∅. (1.18)
If u(y1)6=u(y2), then under one of the conditions (i)–(iii) in Theorem 1.2, we have
(3) if {u′ = 0} ∩ {u = umin} = ∅, then there exist at most finitely many traveling wave
families near (u,0) for β ∈(0,∞);
(4) if {u′ = 0} ∩ {u = umax}= ∅, then there exist at most finitely many traveling wave
families near (u,0) for β ∈(−∞,0).
Let us give some remarks on the shape of the traveling waves and long time dynamics near the flowu.
• By (5.15), the traveling waves constructed in Lemma 1.4 have fluid trajectories mov-ing in one direction, and thus unlike the steady flow near Couette flow in [11], the streamlines here have no cat’s eyes structure.
• Let {u′ = 0} ∩ {u = umin} 6= ∅ and β > 98κ+. The argument in Remark 5.2 shows that the directions of vertical velocities of the nearby traveling waves might change more frequently (even though) with small amplitude as the traveling speeds converge to u−min. The case for{u′ = 0} ∩ {u=umax} 6=∅ and β < 9
8κ− is similar.
• Whenβpasses throughβ±, the sudden change of the number of traveling wave families indicates that the long time dynamics near a shear flow is richer. In particular, quasi-periodic solutions to (1.1)–(1.2) can be expected near the shear flow forβ∈(β−, β+), while almost periodic solutions are expectable for β /∈[β−, β+].
Finally, we prove Theorems 1.1, 1.2 and 1.6 for flows in class K+ unconditionally, and apply them to the flow with Sinus profile. In particular, we calculate the number of isolated real eigenvalues ofRα,β and traveling wave families on the whole (α, β)-plane for this flow.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove Theorem 1.1 (1)–(3). In Section 3, we prove Theorem 1.1 (4)–(5). In Section 4, we prove Theorem 1.2. In Section 5, we give the proofs of Lemmas 1.3–1.4 and Theorem 1.6. In Section 6, we study the flows in classK+ and the Sinus flow.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.1 (1)–(3)
Let α > 0, c ∈ R\Ran(u), ψc be an eigenfunction of λ =−α2 for (1.6) and Fc = ψc
u−c.
Then
((u−c)2Fc′)′+ (−α2(u−c)2+β(u−c))Fc = 0.
Integration by parts gives Z y2 y1 (u−c)2(|Fc′|2+α2|Fc|2)dy = Z y2 y1 β(u−c)|Fc|2dy.
Thus,σd(Rα,β)∩(umax,∞) =∅ ifβ ≥0, andσd(Rα,β)∩(−∞, umin) =∅ ifβ ≤0. Moreover,
σd(Rα,0)∩R=∅. This proves Theorem 1.1 (1). Therefore, we only need to study♯(σd(Rα,β)∩
(−∞, umin)) forβ >0 and ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(umax,∞)) forβ <0.
It follows from [15] that the k-th eigenvalue of (1.6) withc∈R\Ran(u) is
λk(c) = sup dimV=k−1 inf φ∈H1 0,φ∈V⊥,kφkL2=1 Z y2 y1 |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy = inf dimVk=k sup φ∈H1 0,φ∈Vk,kφkL2=1 Z y2 y1 |φ′|2+ u′′−β u−c |φ| 2 dy. (2.1)
Following [4, 12], the first lemma is a Hardy type inequality.
Lemma 2.1. Let φ∈H1(a, b) and φ(y0) = 0 for some y0 ∈[a, b]. Then φ y−y0 2 L2(a,b) + Rb a|y−y0|−1φ(y)2dy max(b−y0, y0−a) ≤ 4kφ′k2L2(a,b). (2.2)
Here the constant 4 is optimal.
Proof. Suppose thatφis real-valued without loss of generality. Letε= 1/max(b−y0, y0−a). First, we consider the integration on [y0, b] (if y0< b). Since
φ(y) 2 y−y0 ≤ kφ′k2 L2(y0,y)(y−y0) y−y0 =kφ′k2L2(y0,y)→0, as y→y0+, (2.3) we have φ y−y0 2 L2(y0,b) =− Z b y0 φ(y)2d 1 y−y0 =−φ(y) 2 y−y0 b y0 + Z b y0 2φ(y)φ′(y) y−y0 dy, Z b y0 2φ(y)φ′(y)dy =φ(y)2by 0 =φ(b) 2, y−φy0 2 L2(y0,b) + y−φy0 −εφ−2φ′ 2 L2(y0,b) =−2φ(b) 2 b−y0 + 2εφ(b)2−2ε Z b y0 φ(y)2 y−y0 dy+ε2kφk2L2(y0,b)+ 4kφ′k2L2(y0,b) ≤ −ε Z b y0 φ(y)2 y−y0dy+ 4kφ ′k2 L2(y0,b). Here we usedε≤ b−1y 0 and φ(y)2 y−y0 b y0 = φ(b)2 b−y0.Thus, φ y−y0 2 L2(y 0,b)+ε Rb y0 φ(y)2 y−y0dy ≤4kφ ′k2 L2(y0,b). Similarly, y−φy 0 2 L2(a,y0) +ε Ry0 a φ(y)2 y0−ydy ≤ 4kφ ′k2
L2(a,y0). This gives (2.2). Letting y0 = a,
To prove Theorem 1.1 (2)–(3), we first study the distribution for eigenvalues of (1.6). We need the following lemma.
Lemma 2.2. Assume that a∈[y1, y2], u(a) = umin, φ ∈ H01(y1, y2), c < umin and β >0.
Then there exists a constant δ0 >0 (depending only on u and a) such that for 0< δ≤δ0, (1) if(i) u′(a)6= 0 or (ii) u′(a) = 0, β≤9u′′(a)/8, φ(a) = 0, then
Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy≥0; (2.4) (2) if(iii) a∈(y1, y2), u′(a) = 0, β≤u′′(a), then Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy ≥ −C δkφk2L2([a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2]). (2.5)
Here Cδ is a positive constant depending only on u, a and δ.
Proof. First, we assume (i). Then we have a∈ {y1, y2} and thus φ(a) = 0. Without loss of generality, we assume that a= y1. In this case, u′(y1) >0. Choose δ1 ∈ (0, y2−y1) small enough such that u′(y) > u′(y1)
2 fory ∈(y1, y1+δ1), and thus, there existsξy ∈(y1, y) such thatu(y)−c > u(y)−umin =u′(ξy)(y−y1)> u
′(y1)
2 (y−y1)>0 forc < umin. Note that for
y∈(y1, y1+δ), |φ(y)|2 = Z y y1 φ′(s)ds 2 ≤ kφ′k2L2(y1,y)(y−y1). Now we take δ0 ∈ (0, δ1) to be small enough such that Ryy11+δ0 2|u
′′−β| u′(y1) dy ≤ 1. Then for 0< δ≤δ0, Z y1+δ y1 u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy ≤ kφ′k2L2(y1,y1+δ) Z y1+δ y1 2|u′′−β| u′(y1) dy≤ kφ′k 2 L2(y1,y1+δ), which implies (2.4) since [a−δ, a+δ]∩[y1, y2] = [y1, y1+δ].
Now we assume (ii), thenu′′(a)>0. Letδ1 ∈(0,max(y2−a, a−y1)) be small enough such
thatu′′(y)> u′′2(a) >0 fory∈[a−δ1, a+δ1]∩[y1, y2]. Sinceu∈H4(y1, y2)⊂C3([y1, y2]), we have|u′′(y)−u′′(a)| ≤C|y−a|and|1/u′′(y)−1/u′′(a)| ≤C|y−a|fory∈[a−δ1, a+δ1]∩[y1, y2]. Then there existsξy ∈ {z:|z−a|<|y−a|}such thatu(y)−c > u(y)−umin = u
′′(ξ
y)
2 (y−a)2
> 29β(y−a)2 >0 forc < umin and y∈[a−δ1, a+δ1]∩[y1, y2], and thus 0< 1 u(y)−c < 2 u′′(ξy)(y−a)2 ≤ 2 +C|ξy−a| u′′(a)(y−a)2 ≤ 2 +C|y−a| u′′(a)(y−a)2, u′′(y)−β≥u′′(a)−C|y−a| −9u′′(a)/8 =−u′′(a)/8−C|y−a|, u′′(y)−β u(y)−c ≥ −u′′(a)/8−C|y−a| u(y)−c ≥ − u′′(a) 8 2 +C|y−a| u′′(a)(y−a)2 − C|y−a| (2β/9)(y−a)2 ≥ −1 +C0|y−a| 4(y−a)2 .
Now we take δ0 = min(δ1, C0−1)>0. For 0< δ≤δ0, by Lemma 2.1 we have
− Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy≤Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] 1 +C0|y−a| 4(y−a)2 |φ| 2dy (2.6)
≤ Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] 1 +δ−1|y−a| 4(y−a)2 |φ| 2dy≤φ′2 L2([a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2]), which implies (2.4).
Next, we assume (iii). In this case, u′(a) = 0. Letβe=u′′(a)>0. Then βe≥β. Let δ1 ∈ (0,min(y2−a, a−y1)) be small enough such thatu′′(y)> u
′′(a)
2 >0 and|u(y)−umin| ≤1/2 fory∈[a−δ1, a+δ1]. Then 0< u(y)−c <1 fory ∈[a−δ1, a+δ1] andc∈(umin−1/2, umin). Now we assume 0< δ≤δ1. Direct computation implies
Z a+δ a−δ u′′−βe u−c |φ| 2dy =Z a+δ a−δ u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2d(ln(u−c)) = u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2(ln(u−c)) ! a+δ a−δ− Z a+δ a−δ ln(u−c) u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2 !′ dy =Ic,δ(φ) +IIc,δ(φ).
Sinceβe−u′′(a) = 0, it follows from the proof of Lemma 3.7 in [19] that u′′u−′βe∈H1(a−δ1, a+
δ1). By interpolation, we have kφkL∞(a−δ,a+δ) ≤CδkφkL2(a−δ,a+δ)+kφ′kL2(a−δ,a+δ), and thus u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2 ! (a+δ)− u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2 ! (a−δ) ≤C u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2 !′ L2(a−δ,a+δ) δ12 ≤C u′′−βe u′ !′ |φ|2+ u′′−βe u′ ! 2φφ′ L2(a−δ,a+δ) δ12
≤Ckφk2L∞(a−δ,a+δ)+kφkL∞(a−δ,a+δ)kφ′kL2(a−δ,a+δ) δ12 ≤(CδkφkL22(a−δ,a+δ)+Ckφ′k2L2(a−δ,a+δ))δ 1 2 and u′′u−′βe|φ|2 (a−δ) ≤Ckφk2
L∞(a−δ,a+δ) ≤Cδkφk2L2(a−δ,a+δ)+Ckφ′kL22(a−δ,a+δ). Then
Ic,δ(φ) = u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2 ! a+δ a−δln(u(a+δ)−c) + u′′−βe u′ |φ| 2 ! |a−δln(u−c) a+δ a−δ ≤(CδkφkL22(a−δ,a+δ)+Ckφ′k2L2(a−δ,a+δ))(δ 1 2|ln(u(a+δ)−c)|+|ln(u−c)a+δ a−δ|).
Note thatC′(y−a)2≤ |u(y)−u(a)| ≤C′′(y−a)2fory∈[a−δ, a+δ]. Then|ln(u(y)−c)|=
−ln(u(y)−c) ≤ −ln(u(y)−u(a))≤ −ln(C′(y−a)2) and |ln(u(a+δ)−c)| ≤ −ln(C′δ2)≤
C(|lnδ|+ 1) for|c−umin|<1/2 andy∈[a−δ, a+δ]. Letu+= max(u(a+δ), u(a−δ)) and
u−= min(u(a+δ), u(a−δ)). Then u+≥u−> u(a), and |ln(u−c)aa+δ −δ|= ln u+−c u−−c ≤ln u+−u(a) u−−u(a) = ln u(a+δ)−u(a) u(a−δ)−u(a) forc < umin =u(a). Thus,
|Ic,δ(φ)| ≤(Cδkφk2L2(a−δ,a+δ)+Ckφ′k2L2(a−δ,a+δ))Ψ(δ) (2.7)
forc∈(umin−1/2, umin), where
Ψ(δ) =δ12(|lnδ|+ 1) + ln u(a+δ)−u(a) u(a−δ)−u(a) .
Note that lim δ→0+ ln u(a+δ)−u(a) u(a−δ)−u(a) = limδ→0+ ln u′′(ξa+δ) u′′(ξa−δ) = 0, whereξa+δ∈(a, a+δ) andξa−δ ∈(a−δ, a). Therefore limδ→0+Ψ(δ) = 0.
Next, we claim that ln(u−c),c∈(umin−1/2, umin), is uniformly bounded inLp(a−δ, a+δ) for 1< p <∞. The proof is similar as that in Lemma 3.7 of [19]. Note that |ln(u(y)−c)| ≤
−ln(C′(y−a)2) for |c−umin|<1/2 and y∈[a−δ, a+δ]. Therefore, Z a+δ a−δ | ln(u−c)|pdy ≤C Z a+δ a−δ (|ln(y−a)2|p+ 1)dy ≤C Z δ −δ (|ln|z|2|p+ 1)dz≤C. Now, we consider IIc,δ(φ). |IIc,δ(φ)| ≤(2δ) 1 4kln(u−c)kL4(a−δ,a+δ) u′′−β u′ |φ| 2′ L2(a−δ,a+δ) (2.8) ≤(CδkφkL22(a−δ,a+δ)+Ckφ′k2L2(a−δ,a+δ))δ 1 4. Combining (2.7) and (2.8), we get forc∈(umin−1/2, umin),
Z a+δ a−δ u′′−βe u−c |φ| 2dy ≤(Cδkφk 2 L2(a−δ,a+δ)+C1kφ′k2L2(a−δ,a+δ))(δ 1 4 + Ψ(δ)).
Since limδ→0+Ψ(δ) = 0, we have limδ→0+(δ 1
4 + Ψ(δ)) = 0, and there exists δ0 ∈(0, δ1) such thatC1(δ
1
4 + Ψ(δ))<1. Then for 0< δ≤δ0 and c∈(umin−1/2, umin), we have Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy ≥Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] u′′−βe u−c |φ| 2dy ≥ −(Cδkφk2L2(a−δ,a+δ)+C1kφ′k2L2(a−δ,a+δ))(δ 1 4 + Ψ(δ)) ≥ −Cδkφk2L2(a−δ,a+δ)(δ 1 4 + Ψ(δ))− kφ′k2 L2(a−δ,a+δ),
which implies (2.5) since [a−δ, a+δ]∩[y1, y2] = [a−δ, a+δ]. On the other hand, for 0< δ≤δ0 andc≤umin−1/2, we have
Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy ≥Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] u′′−βe u−c |φ| 2dy ≥ −2 Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |u′′−βe||φ|2dy ≥ −Ckφk2L2(a−δ,a+δ),
which implies (2.5). This completes the proof.
Theorem 2.3. (1)Let 0< β≤ 98κ+. Then (i) lim
c→u−min
λn(c) =−∞, 1≤n≤mβ;
(ii) Mβ <∞;
(iii) there exists an integer Nβ > mβ such that inf c∈(−∞,umin) λNβ(c)≥0. (2) Let 98κ−≤β <0. Then (i) lim c→u+max λn(c) =−∞, 1≤n≤mβ; (ii) Mβ <∞;
(iii) there exists an integer Nβ > mβ such that inf c∈(umax,∞)
λNβ(c)≥0.
Here, κ±, mβ and Mβ are defined in (1.7)–(1.10).
Proof. We only give the proof of (1), since (2) can be proved similarly. First, we consider 1≤n≤mβ. It suffices to show that limc→u−
minλmβ(c) =−∞. Let {a∈(y1, y2) :u=umin, u′′(a)−β <0}={a1,· · · , amβ}, (2.9) and η(x) = ( µexp1−−1x2 , x∈(−1,1), 0, x /∈(−1,1), (2.10)
whereµ >0 is a constant such thatR1
−1η(x)2dx= 1. Thenη∈C0∞(R). Define ϕi(y) =δ− 1 2 0 η y−ai δ0 , y∈[y1, y2],
where 1≤i≤mβ, andδ0>0 is small enough such that (ai−δ0, ai+δ0)∩(aj−δ0, aj+δ0) =
∅ for i 6= j and u′′(y)− β < 0 for all y ∈ ∪1≤i≤mβ(ai −δ0, ai +δ0) ⊂ (y1, y2). Then
kϕikL2(y1,y2) = 1 and supp (ϕi) = (ai−δ0, ai+δ0). Thus, ϕi⊥ϕj in the L2 sense for i 6=j. Let Vmβ = span{ϕ1,· · · , ϕmβ}. Then Vmβ ⊂ H
1
0(y1, y2). By (2.1), there exist bi,c ∈ R, i= 1,· · ·, mβ, withPmi=1β |bi,c|2 = 1 such thatϕc =Pmi=1β bi,cϕi ∈Vmβ withkϕck
2 L2 = 1, and λmβ(c)≤ sup kφkL2=1,φ∈Vmβ Z y2 y1 |φ′|2+ u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy =Z y2 y1 |ϕ′c|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕc| 2dy = mβ X i=1 |bi,c|2 Z ai+δ0 ai−δ0 |ϕ′i|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕi| 2 dy ≤ max 1≤i≤mβ Z ai+δ0 ai−δ0 |ϕ′i|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕi| 2dy → −∞ as c→u− min. (2.11)
Next, we prove (ii). Letδ1 >0 be a sufficiently small constant such that (a−δ1, a+δ1)⊂ [y1, y2] fora∈ {u=umin} \ {y1, y2}, and|a−b|>2δ1 fora, b∈ {u=umin} anda6=b. There are four cases for zeros ofa∈ {u=umin}as follows:
Case 1. a∈ {y1, y2} and u′(a)6= 0;
Case 2. a∈ {y1, y2}, u′(a) = 0 (thusβ ≤ 98κ+≤9u′′(a)/8); Case 3. a∈(y1, y2) andβ ≤u′′(a);
Case 4. a∈(y1, y2) andu′′(a)< β≤9u′′(a)/8.
Then we divide our proof into four cases as above. In fact, for Cases 1–2, by Lemma 2.2 (1) there existsδ(a)>0 such that for 0< δ≤δ(a),c < umin and φ∈H01,
Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2 dy≥0. (2.12)
For Case 3, by Lemma 2.2 (2) there exists δ(a)>0 such that for 0< δ≤δ(a),c < umin and
φ∈H01, Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2 dy ≥ −C(δ, a) Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ|2dy. (2.13)
Here C(δ, a) depends only on u, a, δ. Moreover, ifφ(a) = 0, then by Lemma 2.2 (1), Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2 dy≥0. (2.14)
For Case 4, we have a∈ {a1,· · · , amβ}.By Lemma 2.2 (1), there exists δ(a) >0 such that
for 0< δ≤δ(a), c < umin,φ∈H01 and φ(a) = 0, Z [a−δ,a+δ]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy≥0. (2.15)
Now let δ0 = min({δ(a) :a∈ {u=umin}} ∪ {δ1}). Define (q1(y), q01(y)) = ( (uu′′((yy))−−cβ,1) y ∈[y1, y2]\ ∪a∈{u=umin}(a−δ0, a+δ0), (0,0) y∈ ∪a∈{u=umin}((a−δ0, a+δ0)∩[y1, y2]), (q2(y), q02(y)) = ( u′′(y)−β u(y)−c −q1(y),1−q 0 1(y)) y∈[y1, y2]. Then there exists C0 >0 such that for c < umin,
|q1(y)| ≤C0 for y∈[y1, y2]. Forφ∈H01 andkφkL2 = 1, Z y2 y1 |φ′|2+ u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy = Z y2 y1 q10|φ′|2+q1|φ|2dy+ Z y2 y1 q20|φ′|2+q2|φ|2dy =Ic(φ) +IIc(φ).
Let us first consider Ic(φ). For φ∈H01 and kφkL2 = 1, we have
Ic(φ)≥
Z y2
y1
−C0|φ|2dy ≥ −C0 (2.16)
forc < umin. We proceed to considerIIc(φ). IIc(φ) = X a∈{u=umin} Z [a−δ0,a+δ0]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2dy (2.17) = X Case 1 +· · ·+ X Case 4 ! Z [a−δ0,a+δ0]∩[y1,y2] |φ′|2+u′′−β u−c |φ| 2 dy.
Recall that a1,· · · , amβ are defined in (2.9). For any (mβ + 1)-dimensional subspace V =
span{ψ1,· · · , ψmβ+1} in H
1
0(y1, y2), there exists 0 6= (ξ1,· · ·, ξmβ+1) ∈ R
mβ+1 such that
ξ1ψ1(ai) +· · ·+ξmβ+1ψmβ+1(ai) = 0, i = 1,· · · , mβ.Define ˜ψ =ξ1ψ1+· · ·+ξmβ+1ψmβ+1.
Then ˜ψ(ai) = 0, i= 1,· · ·, mβ. We normalize ˜ψsuch that kψ˜kL2(y1,y2)= 1. Then by (2.12), (2.13), (2.15) and (2.17), we have IIc( ˜ψ)≥ X Case 3 Z [a−δ0,a+δ0]∩[y1,y2] |ψ˜′|2+u′′−β u−c |ψ˜| 2 dy ≥ − X Case 3 C(δ0, a) Z [a−δ0,a+δ0]∩[y1,y2] |ψ˜|2dy≥ − max Case 3C(δ0, a).
This, along with (2.1) and (2.16), yields that infc∈(−∞,umin)λmβ+1(c)≥ − max
Case 3C(δ0, a)−C0. This proves (ii).
Finally, we prove (iii). Let q1, q2, Ic(φ), IIc(φ) and C0 be defined as in (ii). Let µ1([a, b]) be the principal eigenvalue of
−φ′′=λφ, φ(a) =φ(b) = 0.
Then we have µ1([a, b]) =|π/(b−a)|2,and Z b a | φ′|2dy ≥µ1([a, b]) Z b a | φ|2dy forφ∈H01(a, b). (2.18) Letδ2=π/C 1 2
0. Then we have µ1([a, b])≥C0 for 0< b−a≤δ2. Let
M = ({nδ2 :n∈Z} ∪ {a+b:a∈ {u=umin}, b∈ {−δ0,0, δ0}} ∪ {y1, y2})∩[y1, y2]. Then M is a finite set, and we can write its elements in the increasing order
M ={a′0,· · · , a′Nβ}, y1=a′0 <· · ·< a′Nβ =y2.
Then 0< a′k+1−a′k≤δ2 and µ1([a′k, a′k+1])≥C0 for 0≤k < Nβ. Let
M1={k∈Z: 0≤k < Nβ, [a′k, a′k+1]∩(a−δ0, a+δ0) =∅, ∀a∈ {u=umin}}. Then we have [y1, y2]\(∪a∈{u=umin}(a−δ0, a+δ0)) =∪k∈M1[a′k, a′k+1].
For any Nβ-dimensional subspaceV = span{ψ1,· · ·, ψNβ} inH
1 0(y1, y2), there exists 06= (ξ1,· · ·, ξNβ) ∈ R Nβ such that ξ 1ψ1(a′i) +· · ·+ξNβψNβ(a′i) = 0, i = 1,· · · , Nβ −1. Define ˜
ψ = ξ1ψ1+· · ·+ξNβψNβ. Then ˜ψ(a′i) = 0, i = 1,· · ·, Nβ −1. We normalize ˜ψ such that
kψ˜kL2(y1,y2)= 1. Since ˜ψ∈H01(y1, y2), we also have ˜ψ(a′0) = ˜ψ(y1) = 0, ψ˜(a′N
β) = ˜ψ(y2) = 0,
and thus ˜ψ(a′i) = 0 for i= 0,· · ·, Nβ,i.e. ˜ψ|M = 0.By (2.18), we have
Z a′ k+1 a′ k |ψ˜′|2dy≥µ1([a′k, a′k+1]) Z a′ k+1 a′ k |ψ˜|2dy≥C0 Z a′ k+1 a′ k |ψ˜|2dy, k= 0,· · · , Nβ−1. (2.19)
First, we considerIc( ˜ψ). By (2.19), we have Ic( ˜ψ)≥ Z [y1,y2]\(∪a∈{u=umin}(a−δ0,a+δ0)) |ψ˜′|2−C0|ψ˜|2 dy (2.20) = X k∈M1 Z a′ k+1 a′ k |ψ˜′|2−C0|ψ˜|2 dy≥0.
Next, we consider IIc( ˜ψ). For a ∈ {u = umin}, we have a∈ M and ˜ψ(a) = 0. Then by (2.12), (2.14), (2.15) and (2.17), we haveIIc( ˜ψ)≥0.This, along with (2.1) and (2.20), yields
that infc∈(−∞,umin)λNβ(c)≥0.This proves (iii).
We only consider 0 < β < 98κ+ in the sequel, since the analysis for 98κ− < β < 0 is
similar. From Theorem 2.3 (1), we get that for α > 0 and 1 ≤n ≤ mβ, λn(c) = −α2 has
only finite number of solutions c on (−∞, umin). Moreover, ifn≥Nβ, no solutions exist for λn(c) = −α2 on c ∈ (−∞, umin). Next, we consider the eigenvalues λn(c), c ∈ (−∞, umin),
mβ < n < Nβ, with the property λn(c) ≤0. We need the information whether ♯({λn(c) =
−α2, c∈(−∞, umin)})<∞formβ < n < Nβ. To this end, we first consider the compactness
Lemma 2.4. Let c∈Ran(u), y0 ∈u−1{c} ∩(y1, y2), u′(y0) = 0 andδ >0 so that (u′′(y0)−
β)(u′′(y)−β) >0 on [y0−δ, y0+δ]⊂[y1, y2] and [y0−δ, y0+δ]∩u−1{c}={y0}. Assume
that β/u′′(y0) < 9/8. Let φn, ωn ∈ H1(y
0 −δ, y0+δ) and cn ∈ C so that cin > 0, cn → c, φn⇀0, ωn→0 in H1(y0−δ, y0+δ) and
(u−cn)(φ′′n−α2φn)−(u′′−β)φn=ωn
holds on [y0−δ, y0+δ]. Then φn→0 in H1(y0−δ, y0+δ).
Herecin= Im(cn). The proof of Lemma 2.4 is the same as that of Lemma 3.4 in [19], where
we only used the conditionβ/u′′(y0)<9/8 rather than the stronger condition: (H) u∈H4(y1, y2), u′′(yc)6= 0, β/u′′(yc)<9/8 at critical pointsu′(yc) = 0.
Since otherwise, we can constructeusuch thatue∈H4(y1, y2), ue|[y0−δ,y0+δ]=u|[y0−δ,y0+δ] and (ue′)−1{0}={y0}. Recall that all the conditions and conclusions depend only onu|[y0−δ,y0+δ]. Then we prove the uniform H1 bound for the eigenfunctions. More precisely, we have the following result.
Proposition 2.5. Let 0 < β < 98κ+. Assume that mβ < n < Nβ, {ck} ⊂ (−∞, umin),
ck→u−min and −λn(ck) =α2 >0, where mβ andNβ are given in (1.9)–(1.10), and λn(ck) is
the n-th eigenvalue of
−ψ′′k+u′′−β
u−ck
ψk=λn(ck)ψk, ψk(y1) =ψk(y2) = 0 (2.21)
with the L2 normalized eigenfunction ψ
k. Then
kψkkH1(y1,y2)≤C, k≥1. (2.22)
Proof. Suppose that (2.22) is not true. Up to a subsequence, we can assume thatkψkkH1(y1,y2)
≥k.Let ˆψk= kψkkψk H1(y1,y2) on [y1, y2]. Then− ˆ ψk′′+uu′′−−cβ k ˆ ψk=−α2ψˆkon [y1, y2],kψˆkkH1(y1,y2) = 1 and kψˆkkL2(y1,y2)= 1/kψkkH1(y1,y2) ≤1/k→0. Thus, ˆψk ⇀0 inH1(y1, y2).
Similar to Lemma 3.1 in [19], we have ˆψk → 0 in H1((a−δ, a+δ) ∩[y1, y2]) for a ∈
{u = umin} ∩ {u′ 6= 0}. Similar to Lemma 3.5 and Remark 3.6 in [19], we have ˆψk → 0 in H1((a−δ, a+δ)∩[y1, y2]) for a ∈ {u = umin} ∩ {y1, y2} ∩ {u′ = 0} ∩ {u′′ 6= β}. Similar to Lemma 3.7 and Remark 3.8 in [19], we have ˆψk → 0 in H1((a−δ, a+δ)∩[y1, y2]) for
a ∈ {u = umin} ∩ {u′ = 0} ∩ {u′′ = β}. The main difference is that ck ∈ R rather than
Im(ck)>0, and we can overcome this difficulty by perturbation of ck as in the next case.
If a ∈ {u = umin} ∩(y1, y2)∩ {u′′ 6= β}, then 0 < β < 98κ+ ≤ 9u′′(a)/8. Take δ ∈ (0,min(y2−a, a−y1)) small enough so that (u′′(a)−β)(u′′(y)−β) >0 on [a−δ, a+δ]⊂ [y1, y2] and [a−δ, a+δ]∩ {u = umin} = {a}. Noting that ˆψk,u
′′−β u−ck ∈ H 1(a−δ, a+δ), we have ˆψ′′k−α2ψˆk = u ′′ −β u−ck ˆ
ψk ∈H1(a−δ, a+δ), and there exists ǫk >0 such that ǫk(1 +
kψˆ′′
k−α2ψˆkkH1(a−δ,a+δ)) → 0. Let eck =ck+iǫk and ωk =−iǫk( ˆψ′′k−α2ψˆk). Then we have (u−eck)( ˆψ′′k−α2ψˆk)−(u′′−β) ˆψk = ωk, kωkkH1(a−δ,a+δ) → 0, eck → umin, Im(eck) >0 and
ˆ
ψk⇀ 0 inH1(a−δ, a+δ). By Lemma 2.4, we have ˆψk →0 in H1((a−δ, a+δ)∩[y1, y2]). Note that ˆψk → 0 in Cloc2 ([y1, y2]\ {u = umin}). Therefore, ˆψk → 0 in H1(y1, y2), which contradicts kψˆkkH1(y1,y2)= 1. Thus, (2.22) is true. Following Definition 3.10 in [19], we call umin (or umax) to be an embedding eigenvalue of Rα,β if there exists a nontrivial ψ ∈ H01(y1, y2) such that for any ϕ ∈ H01(y1, y2) and
suppϕ⊂(y1, y2)\ {y ∈(y1, y2) :u(y) =umin, u′′(y)6=β}, Z y2 y1 (ψ′ϕ′+α2ψϕ)dy+p.v. Z y2 y1 (u′′−β)ψϕ u−umin dy= 0.
Equivalently, umin (or umax) is an embedding eigenvalue of the linearized operator of (1.1) (in velocity form) defined on L2 ×L2. In fact, ~v = (ψ′,−iαψ) 6= 0 is the corresponding
eigenfunction.
We are now in a position to prove Theorem 1.1 (2).
Proof of Theorem 1.1 (2). By Theorem 2.3, it suffices to show that♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(−∞, umin))
< ∞ for 0 < α2 ≤ Mβ and 0< β < 98κ+. Suppose ♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(−∞, umin)) = ∞. Then by Theorem 2.3, there exist mβ < n < Nβ and {ck} ⊂ (−∞, umin) with ck → u−min such thatλn(ck) =−α2 is the n-th eigenvalue of (2.21) with theL2 normalized eigenfunction ψk.
By Proposition 2.5, up to a subsequence, there exists ψ0 ∈H01(y1, y2) such thatψk ⇀ ψ0 in
H01(y1, y2). Similar to (3.28) in [19], lim k→∞ Z a+δ a−δ (u′′−β)ψkϕ u−ck dy =p.v. Z a+δ a−δ (u′′−β)ψ0ϕ u−umin dy
for any a∈ {u =umin} ∩(y1, y2)∩ {u′′ = β} and ϕ∈H01(a−δ, a+δ). Since
(u′′−β)ψ kϕ u−ck → (u′′−β)ψ0ϕ u−umin inC 0
loc((y1, y2)\ {u=umin}), taking limits in Z y2 y1 (ψk′ϕ′+α2ψkϕ) + (u′′−β)ψkϕ u−ck dy = 0 for any ϕ∈H1
0(y1, y2) and supp ϕ⊂(y1, y2)\ {y∈(y1, y2) :u(y) =umin, u′′(y)6=β}, we get Z y2 y1 (ψ′0ϕ′+α2ψ0ϕ)dy+p.v. Z y2 y1 (u′′−β)ψ0ϕ u−umin dy = 0.
Ifψ0 is nontrivial, umin is an embedding eigenvalue of Rα,β, which is a contradiction.
There-fore, ψk ⇀ ψ0 ≡ 0 in H1(y1, y2), which contradicts that kψkkL2(y1,y2) = 1, k ≥ 1. Thus,
♯(σd(Rα,β)∩(−∞, umin))<∞.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 (4)–(5)
In this section, we give the proof of Theorem 1.1 (4)–(5).
Proof of Theorem 1.1 (4)–(5). We only prove Theorem 1.1 (4), since (5) can be proved sim-ilarly. Let β > 98κ+. Then there exists a∈[y1, y2] such that β/u′′(a) > 9/8, u′(a) = 0 and
u(a) =umin. If a∈[y1, y2), our analysis is completely on [a, a+δ]⊂[y1, y2) for δ >0 small enough. If a= y2, the analysis is only on [a−δ, a] and the proof is similar as a∈ [y1, y2). Now we assume that a = 0 ∈ [y1, y2). Then u′′(0) > 0 and there exists ε0 > 0 such that
u′′(z) >0 and
2(u′′(y)−β)
u′′(z) <−
1 4−ε0
for y, z ∈ [0, δ] ⊂ [y1, y2) and δ > 0 small enough. Let ν0 = minz∈[0,δ]{u′′(z)} > 0 and
J(x) =η(2x−1), x∈R, whereη is defined in (2.10). Define
ϕi,R(y) = ( y21J lny R +i+ 1 , y∈(0, y2], 0, y∈[y1,0],
where i= 1,· · · , k, and R is large enough such that e−R < δ. Then ϕi,R ∈ H01(y1, y2) and suppϕi,R = [e−(i+1)R, e−iR], i= 1,· · · , k. Thus, ϕi,R ⊥ϕj,R in the L2 sense fori6=j. Note
thatu′′(y)−β <0 fory ∈[0, δ]. For 1≤i≤k, we define
˜
ϕi,R =
1
kϕi,RkL2
ϕi,R, and ˜Vk,R = span{ϕ˜1,R,· · · ,ϕ˜k,R}.
Choose R > 0 such that 2(umin−c) = ε0ν0e
−2(k+1)R
8 . Thenc → u−min ⇔ R → ∞. We shall show that for 1≤i≤k,
lim c→u−min Z y2 y1 |ϕ˜′i,R|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕ˜i,R| 2dy =−∞. (3.1)
Assume that (3.1) is true. Similar to (2.11), there existdi,c ∈R, i= 1,· · · , k,withPki=1|di,c|2
= 1 such that λk(c)≤ k X i=1 |di,c|2 Z y2 y1 |ϕ˜′i,R|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕ˜i,R| 2dy→ −∞ as c→u− min. (3.2)
Now we prove (3.1). Direct computation gives
u′′(y)−β u(y)−c = u′′(y)−β u(y)−umin+umin−c = 2(u′′(y)−β) u′′(ξy)y2+ 2(u min−c) < 2(u′′(y)−β) u′′(ξy) +ε0u′′(ξy) 8 y2 < − 1 4−ε0u ′′(ξ y) u′′(ξy) +ε0u′′(ξy) 8 y2 =− 1 (4−ε0) 1 +ε80y2 =− 1 (4−ε1)y2 for y ∈ [e−(i+1)R, e−iR] and 2(u min−c) = ε0ν0e −2(k+1)R 8 , where ξy ∈ (0, y) and ε1 = ε20 + ε2 0 8. Then Z y2 y1 |ϕ′i,R|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕi,R| 2dy=Z e −iR e−(i+1)R |ϕ′i,R|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕi,R| 2dy (3.3) < Z e−iR e−(i+1)R |ϕ′i,R|2− 1 (4−ε1)y2| ϕi,R|2 dy.
Note that fory∈[e−(i+1)R, e−iR],
|ϕ′i,R(y)|2 = J(x) − (2x−1) 4x2(x−1)2 1 Ryy 1 2 + 1 2y− 1 2J(x) 2 =J(x)2 (2x−1) 2 16x4(x−1)4 1 R2y −J(x) 2 2x−1 4x2(x−1)2 1 Ry+ 1 4yJ(x) 2, where x= lnRy +i+ 1. Since J(x)216(2x4x(−x1)−1)24 ≤C and J(x)24x22(xx−−11)2 ≤C for x ∈[0,1], we get Z e−iR e−(i+1)R J(x)2 (2x−1) 2 16x4(x−1)4 1 R2y −J(x) 2 2x−1 4x2(x−1)2 1 Ry dy ≤RC2 Z e−iR e−(i+1)R 1 ydy+ C R Z e−iR e−(i+1)R 1 ydy = C R +C ≤C.
Then we infer from (3.3) that Z y2 y1 |ϕ′i,R|2+ u′′−β u−c |ϕi,R| 2 dy ≤C+ Z e−iR e−(i+1)R 1 4yJ(x) 2− 1 (4−ε1)y2| ϕi,R|2 dy (3.4) =C+ Z e−iR e−(i+1)R −ε1 4(4−ε1) J(x)21 ydy =C− ε1R 8(4−ε1) <0 when R is large enough. Direct computation gives
kϕi,Rk2L2 = Z e−iR e−(i+1)R yJ lny R +i+ 1 2 dy= Z 1 0 Re2R(x−i−1)J(x)2dx (3.5) ≤CR Z 1 0 e2R(x−i−1)dx=C(e−2iR−e−2(i+1)R)≤Ce−2iR.
Combining (3.4) and (3.5), we have Z y2 y1 |ϕ˜′i,R|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕi,R˜ | 2dy= 1 kϕi,Rk2L2 Z y2 y1 |ϕ′i,R|2+u′′−β u−c |ϕi,R| 2dy ≤ C− ε1R 8(4−ε1) 1 kϕi,Rk2L2 ≤ C− ε1R 8(4−ε1) e2iR C → −∞ asR→ ∞. This proves (3.1).
Finally, we give the the sharp criteria for the first eigenvalue ofLcto be uniformly bounded
from below, which is a consequence of Theorem 2.3 and (3.2).
Corollary 3.1. Let u satisfy (H1).
(1) If {u = umin} ∩(y1, y2) =6 ∅, then a transitional β value min{98κ+, µ+} exists in (0,98κ+]such thatinfc∈(−∞,umin)λ1(c)>−∞forβ∈(0,min{98κ+, µ+}]andlimc→u−
min
λ1(c) =−∞ for β∈(min{98κ+, µ+},98κ+].
(2) If {u = umax} ∩(y1, y2) 6= ∅, then a transitional β value max{98κ−, µ−} exists in
[98κ−,0)such thatinfc∈(umax,∞)λ1(c) >−∞forβ∈[max{98κ−, µ−},0)andlimc→u+max
λ1(c) =−∞ for β∈[98κ−,max{98κ−, µ−}).
(3) If {u=umin} ∩(y1, y2) =∅, then infc∈(−∞,umin)λ1(c)>−∞ for β ∈(0,98κ+]. (4) If {u=umax} ∩(y1, y2) =∅, then infc∈(umax,∞)λ1(c)>−∞ for β ∈[
9 8κ−,0). (5) If {u′ = 0} ∩ {u = umin} 6= ∅, then lim
c→u−min λn(c) = −∞ for β ∈ (98κ+,∞) and
n≥1.
(6) If {u′ = 0} ∩ {u =umax} 6=∅, then lim
c→u+max λn(c) =−∞ for β ∈ (−∞, 9
8κ−) and
n≥1.
Here, κ± and µ± are defined in (1.7)–(1.8) and (1.11)–(1.12).
4. Proof of Theorem 1.2
We give the proof of Theorem 1.2 in this section. To this end, we need the following two lemmas.
Lemma 4.1. Let u∈C2([y1, y2]), u(y1) =umin and u′(y1)6= 0. For fixed γ ∈(0,1/2], there
exist constantsC >0andδ∈(0, y2−y1)such that ifδ1∈(0, δ], z=y1+δ1, 0< umin−c <1,
φ∈C2([y
1, z]) and φ′′=F, then
|φ|L∞(z)≤C(δ1γ|(u−c)2−γF|L∞(z)+|φ(z)|+δ1γ|φ′(z)|),
|(u−c)1−γφ|L∞(z)+δ1γ|(u−c)2−2γφ′|L∞(z) (4.2) ≤C(δγ1|(u−c)3−2γF|L∞(z)+|φ(z)|+δγ1|φ′(z)|), |(u−c)γ−1φ|L∞(z) (4.3) ≤C(|(u−c)γ+1F|L∞(z)+|(umin−c)γ−1φ(y1)|+|φ(z)|+|φ′(z)|), |(u−c)−1φ|L∞(z)≤C(δ1γ|(u−c)1−γF|L∞(z)+|(umin−c)−1φ(y1)|+|φ′(z)|), (4.4) where |f|L∞(z):= supy∈[y 1,z]|f(y)|.
Proof. Since 0< umin−c < 1 and −C ≤ umin ≤u(y) ≤C, we have 0 < u(y)−c ≤C for
y ∈ [y1, z]. Let Aµ = |(u−c)µF|L∞(z) and Bµ =|(u−c)µφ′|L∞(z) for µ∈ R. Let δ > 0 be
small enough such that u′(y)> u′(y1)
2 >0 for y∈[y1, z]⊂[y1, y1+δ]⊂[y1, y2].Then Z z y (u(s)−c)−µds≤ 2 u′(y1) Z z y u′(s)(u(s)−c)−µds= 2(u(s)−c) 1−µ|s=y s=z u′(y1)(µ−1) ≤ 2(u(y)−c)1−µ u′(y1)(µ−1)
for fixed µ >1 and y∈[y1, z], and thus Z z y (u(s)−c)−µds≤ 2(u(y)−c) 1−µ u′(y1)(µ−1) ≤C(u(y)−c) 1−µ. (4.5)
Similarly, for fixedµ <1 and y∈[y1, z], we have Z y y1 (u(s)−c)−µds≤ 2(u(s)−c) 1−µ|s=y s=y1 u′(y1)(1−µ) ≤C(u(y)−c) 1−µ. (4.6)
Since u(s)−c≥u(s)−umin ≥u′(y1)(s−y1)/2 and u(s)−c≥u(y)−c fory1 ≤y≤s≤z, we have for fixedµ≥1−γ,
Z z y (u(s)−c)−µds≤ Z z y (u′(y1)(s−y1)/2)γ−1(u(y)−c)1−γ−µds (4.7) ≤C(u(y)−c)1−γ−µ Z z y (s−y1)γ−1ds≤C(u(y)−c)1−γ−µ(z−y1)γ =Cδγ1(u(y)−c)1−γ−µ.
For fixed µ >1,using (4.5) and the definition ofAµ, we have for y∈[y1, z],
|φ′(y)−φ′(z)| ≤ Z z y | φ′′(s)|ds= Z z y | F(s)|ds≤ Z z y (u(s)−c)−µAµds≤C(u(y)−c)1−µAµ, and |φ′(y)| ≤ |φ′(z)|+C(u(y)−c)1−µAµ, |(u(y)−c)µ−1φ′(y)| ≤(u(y)−c)µ−1|φ′(z)|+CAµ≤C|φ′(z)|+CAµ.
Then by the definition of Bµ, we have Bµ−1 = sup
y∈[y1,z]
|(u(y)−c)µ−1φ′(y)| ≤CAµ+C|φ′(z)| for fixed µ >1.
(4.8)
Similarly, for fixedµ≥1−γ, using (4.7) and the definition ofAµ, we have for y∈[y1, z],
|φ(y)−φ(z)| ≤ Z z y | φ′(s)|ds≤ Z z y (u(s)−c)−µBµds≤Cδ1γ(u(y)−c)1−γ−µBµ.
This implies
|(u−c)µ+γ−1φ|L∞(z)≤Cδ1γBµ+C|φ(z)| for fixed µ≥1−γ.
(4.9)
Using (4.9) forµ= 1−γ and (4.8) for µ= 2−γ, we have
|φ|L∞(z) ≤Cδ1γB1−γ+C|φ(z)| ≤Cδγ1(A2−γ+|φ′(z)|) +C|φ(z)|,
which implies (4.1) by recalling the definition ofAµ. Using (4.9) forµ= 2−2γ and (4.8) for
µ= 3−2γ, we have
|(u−c)1−γφ|L∞(z)+δ1γB2−2γ≤Cδγ1B2−2γ+C|φ(z)| ≤Cδ1γ(A3−2γ+|φ′(z)|) +C|φ(z)|,
which implies (4.2) by recalling the definition ofAµ and Bµ.
For fixed µ <1,using (4.6) and the definition ofAµ, we have for y∈[y1, z],
|φ(y)−φ(y1)| ≤ Z y y1 |φ′(s)|ds≤ Z y y1 (u(s)−c)−µBµds≤C(u(y)−c)1−µBµ, and |φ(y)| ≤ |φ(y1)|+C(u(y)−c)1−µBµ, |(u(y)−c)µ−1φ(y)| ≤(u(y)−c)µ−1|φ(y1)|+CBµ≤(umin−c)µ−1|φ(y1)|+CBµ,
where we used u(y)−c≥umin−c >0 andµ−1<0.Thus,
|(u−c)µ−1φ|L∞(z)≤(umin−c)µ−1|φ(y1)|+CBµ for fixed µ <1.
(4.10)
Using (4.10) for µ=γ and (4.8) for µ= 1 +γ, we have
|(u−c)γ−1φ|L∞(z) ≤(umin−c)γ−1|φ(y1)|+CBγ
≤(umin−c)γ−1|φ(y1)|+C(A1+γ+|φ′(z)|),
which implies (4.3) by recalling the definition of Aµ. Using (4.7) for µ = 1−γ and the
definition ofAµ, we have for y∈[y1, z],
|φ′(y)−φ′(z)| ≤ Z z y | φ′′(s)|ds= Z z y | F(s)|ds≤ Z z y (u(s)−c)γ−1A1−γds≤Cδ1γA1−γ.
Then by the definition of Bµ, we have B0 = sup
y∈[y1,z]
|φ′(y)| ≤Cδγ1A1−γ+C|φ′(z)|.
(4.11)
Using (4.10) for µ= 0 and (4.11), we have
|(u−c)−1φ|L∞(z)≤(umin−c)−1|φ(y1)|+CB0≤(umin−c)−1|φ(y1)|+C(δγ1A1−γ+|φ′(z)|),
which implies (4.4) by recalling the definition ofAµ.
Lemma 4.2. Let u∈C2([y
1, y2]), u(y1) =umin and u′(y1)6= 0. For fixed γ ∈(0,1/2], there
exist constants C >0 and δ1 >0 such that if z=y1+δ1, 0< umin−c <1, φ∈C2([y1, z])
and −φ′′+u′′−β u−c φ=−α 2φ−F on [y 1, z], (4.12)
